Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ulorian - Agent of Chaos" data-source="post: 9241373" data-attributes="member: 16668">You sort of have a point here. When Hasbro purchased WotC in 1999, it was presumably for to acquire the Magic property. They couldn't have cared less about this dinosaur D&amp;D property that WotC had recently picked up, presumably. In 2000, WotC announced the OGL for D&amp;D. In the landlord analogy, the previous landlord and current landlord are both technically Hasbro, but I would think that WotC released this under Hasbro's radar. Buyer's remorse.But... I don't think the biker gang inclusion makes sense in the analogy honestly. Coming from left field, and needlessly inflammatory.Why should they have not tried? They own the product and want control over what they own!Having said that, I think that was a poor business decision on their part to try to quash the OGL. Allowing 3rd party products to build on their product strengthens the RPG scene overall. The number of players grows, which increases their sales.Out of line to ask to have control over a product they purchased? In a discussion, I think it's important to separate personal feelings about a topic from the neutral facts at hand. Use your personal feelings to pick a side, but don't cross the line of letting those feelings blind you to both sides of an argument.This is the analogy of someone with a personal stake in the outcome, as opposed to an analogy that makes sense to someone looking at the situation neutrally (see my comment above). The analogy is coloured by a personal self-interest rather than mirroring the reality of what's actually happening.It makes it much harder to take your arguments seriously when you resort to personal attacks on others.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ulorian - Agent of Chaos, post: 9241373, member: 16668"] You sort of have a point here. When Hasbro purchased WotC in 1999, it was presumably for to acquire the Magic property. They couldn't have cared less about this dinosaur D&D property that WotC had recently picked up, presumably. In 2000, WotC announced the OGL for D&D. In the landlord analogy, the previous landlord and current landlord are both technically Hasbro, but I would think that WotC released this under Hasbro's radar. Buyer's remorse. But... I don't think the biker gang inclusion makes sense in the analogy honestly. Coming from left field, and needlessly inflammatory. Why should they have not tried? They own the product and want control over what they own! Having said that, I think that was a poor business decision on their part to try to quash the OGL. Allowing 3rd party products to build on their product strengthens the RPG scene overall. The number of players grows, which increases their sales. Out of line to ask to have control over a product they purchased? In a discussion, I think it's important to separate personal feelings about a topic from the neutral facts at hand. Use your personal feelings to pick a side, but don't cross the line of letting those feelings blind you to both sides of an argument. This is the analogy of someone with a personal stake in the outcome, as opposed to an analogy that makes sense to someone looking at the situation neutrally (see my comment above). The analogy is coloured by a personal self-interest rather than mirroring the reality of what's actually happening. It makes it much harder to take your arguments seriously when you resort to personal attacks on others. [/QUOTE]

Verification